Rigor: What It Is Not
[deck/abstract]The process of elimination helps define rigor in education.
By Mary B. Martin and Samantha Sipes

<H1>Rigor: What It Is Not</H1>
<P>By Mary B. Martin and Samantha Sipes
<P>Ask your colleagues to define academic rigor and you'll get a deluge of different responses. This term is a buzzword in educational circles, where people assume that its meaning is common knowledge. After all, rigor is not a new concept for educators. For more than thirty years, effective teaching to raise achievement for all students has been the central focus of education. Declaring that all children deserve a rigorous education is never questioned, but agreement on a unified meaning of rigor is difficult to reach. Dictionary definitions only add to the confusion. Merriam-Webster Online defines rigor as a "harsh inflexibility in opinion or judgment; the quality of being unyielding; or a condition that makes life difficult, challenging, or uncomfortable." These definitions hardly describe what educators want to offer students. 
<P>Recently a significant number of sources have indicated that U.S. students are not prepared for the future. Colleges offer remedial programs, businesses criticize the readiness of our graduates to enter the workplace, and the general public questions our country's success with educating all children. Wagner (2008) suggests the need to redefine rigor, using academic content to teach core competencies that surface as necessary for 21st century learning, such as critical thinking, communication, collaboration, adaptability, and initiative. The typical response of schools has been to adopt programs that claim to be challenging and stimulating, eliminate low-level groups and classes from the schedule, or add more accountability measures. Maybe, however, the next move should be looking at instruction in classrooms to ensure rigorous lessons. School leaders must be able to recognize, promote, and strengthen rigor in classrooms. Without this focus and close examination, rigor will remain elusive. But because of the concept's complexity, it may be easier to start this process by describing what rigor is <I>not</I> to determine exactly what it <I>is.</I> 
<P><B>Rigor is not giving students large quantities of work.</B> A common complaint of some students is that because they are "smart," they have six hours of homework instead of two. Instead of having to do ten problems, they are asked to do twenty. Rigorous student work should not simply be an endurance test: more work does not necessarily result in more learning. Too much practice without challenge and critical thinking takes away the enthusiasm for learning and leaves boredom in its place. Rather than working to just complete an assignment, students need to also think critically, work with others, and grow their curiosity for more learning. The quality of the work will address rigor. 
<P><B>Rigor is not just for some students.</B> Rigor is not the same for every student; rather, it should be differentiated to provide a personal and emotional challenge for each student. It relates to students' aptitudes, interests, and learning styles. Teachers must understand what the rigor entails for individual students and provide a climate of support to safeguard success. If teachers create the scaffolding and appropriately sequence the work, all students will sustain their focus on the task and embrace new learning. The daily learning objectives should always be attainable, but they also need to include some "brain stretch." Highly skilled teachers know how to organize units of study that will begin with the necessary basic information, but quickly move to experiences that require applying and extending the new learning. 
<P><B>Rigor is not the same as student engagement.</B> Although rigorous classrooms are usually characterized by high levels of engagement, rigor and engagement are not synonymous concepts. Students are often observed busy doing what has been assigned. On a first glance, a high level of time-on-task is noted. But when the task is analyzed for rigor, it reveals low-level work. For example, students may be highly engaged in a lesson that requires them to complete an art or craft activity. How much genuine, deep learning is occurring when students replicate a state flag or color a map of the United States? Where is the rigor? Teachers' role is to make sure that the active engagement connects to the right work--meaningful, thought-provoking work.
<P><B>Rigor is not covering more information.</B> State standards are guides for content. However, these standards are broad and often criticized as basic, minimum competencies. So, if students are always working on aligned content and the outcome does not require thinking at high levels, where is the rigor? When teachers reduce the work to addressing each standard, they omit the time for deep learning. When teachers play the "coverage game," students will not have time to explore concepts in depth using a variety of resources. Students must delve into complex problems, integrate learning across content areas, and investigate connections between new content and their own experiences. They must critique different perspectives on a topic and justify the decisions they make in their work. When the teacher has too much material to cover in a short amount of time, students are exposed to isolated skills and facts. Deep learning requires more. 
<P><B>Rigor is not a performance by the teacher in the classroom.</B> When teachers see themselves as the "sage on stage," they control the classroom with teacher talk and often limit the learning. In rigorous classrooms, teachers become motivators, coaches, and designers of work, but students are the workers and they are encouraged to push themselves academically. These classrooms are not the ones described by Willard Daggett as ones where students go to school to watch the teacher work. Instead, students in rigorous learning environments set goals and learn to monitor their own academic progress. They become curious, enthusiastic learners who learn to ask difficult questions, including many that the teacher cannot readily answer. 
<P><B>Rigor is not accelerated classes.</B> Courses may be labeled as advanced or honors, but this does not necessarily ensure rigor. School leaders must look at what students are really doing in these classes. Attention must be given to the teaching strategies, the quality of student work, the expectations of the teachers, and the interaction in the classroom to determine how much critical thinking is involved. 
<P><B>Rigor is not saying that our expectations are high.</B> High expectations are played out in classrooms where rigor is in place and where the work is challenging. Educators sometimes get lost in the language. Sometimes the precise requirements for the final product limit the students' creative ideas. Sometimes the rubrics focus on detail rather than on the thinking and problem-solving process. The work teachers assign must show that they expect and believe that their students are capable of learning at high levels. The environment in the classroom must reflect support and encouragement so that when students face an obstacle, they ask for the help they need to move ahead. Teachers must personalize the learning when necessary, but must also have their own personal commitment to promoting and sustaining rigorous learning for all students. 
<P><B>Rigor is not always making good grades.</B> Just because students make high grades on their work does not mean they worked on challenging content. It does not mean they even learned anything new. Can rigorous assignments result in tremendous learning and students still make a C? Just because students earned an A, was their learning extended and challenged? Often grades come from tests. Many of these assessments are multiple choices, and students can do well if they are good guessers. Projects, student writing, and other performance assessments may involve rigor that is revealed another way. If the task is not challenging or meaningful, but the student works hard, the result may be great effort but low rigor. Students want to learn and they know it takes effort. However, the effort can be spent on the wrong work.
<P><B>Conclusion</B>
<P>By knowing what rigor is not, we can turn our attention to what rigor is. Then you can make connections between rigor in lessons and the other criteria for learning, such as alignment, relevance, and engagement. You can determine rigor by considering the levels of critical thinking and the complexity of content. You can promote self-directed learning and authentic tasks. But this requires a deep understanding of rigor--in its entirety. 
<P>Rigor in classrooms is a complex, multi-faceted issue that requires concentrated planning by teachers. Teachers must know their students, the curriculum, and strong pedagogy to build rigor into the teaching and learning process. Because demanding work requires students and teachers to leave their comfort zones, rigor is not always well received. 
<P>Businesses and universities expect graduates to be ready to survive--and thrive--in a globally competitive world. They expect students to be lifelong learners who know how to deal with tough real-life problems. The question remains, How will educators infuse rigor into instruction to ensure that students gain the skills they need? Because the world is changing rapidly, and will continue to change, we must teach students to think critically and creatively in ways that will enable them to handle an unpredictable future.
<P><B>References:</B>
<P>Daggett, W. R. (2005, September). <I>Achieving academic excellence through rigor and relevance.</I> Retrieved on April 28, 2009, from <a href="http://www.learnered.com/pdf/Academic_Excellence.pdf">www.learnered.com/pdf/Academic_Excellence.pdf</a>.
<P>Rigor. (n.d.) In <I>Merriam-Webster online.</I> Retrieved May 2, 2009, from <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rigor"> www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rigor</a>
<P>George, P. (2000). Choosing a rigorous path. <I>Principal Leadership, 1</I>(4), 36-41. Retrieved May 5, 2009, from <a href="http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/search_pubarchives.asp"> www.principals.org/s_nassp/search_pubarchives.asp</a>.
<P>Wagner, Tony. (2008). Rigor redefined. <I>Educational Leadership, 66</I>(2), 20-25. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from <a href="http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/oct08"> www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/oct08</a>.
<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<P><B>Mary B. Martin</B><I> (<a href="mailto:martinmb@winthrop.edu">martinmb@winthrop.edu</a>) is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, SC.</I> 
<P><B>Samantha Sipes</B><I> (<a href="mailto: klschar1@aol.com">klschar1@aol.com</a>) is a coordinator of Leadership Projects for the Office of Training and Development in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in Charlotte, NC. </I>

